Pages

Saturday, October 10, 2009

The structure of our government is well known and above board, depicted by the image.

Some observers believe, however, that the structure presented is merely a front or façade, not the real thing baby.

These observers say that there is a shadow government which makes things happen and actually governs from the shadows.

This post will advance the notion that the so called shadow government is nothing more than group corruption, or systematic corruption at work, which leads many to conclude that strange people outside government directly or indirectly control the people inside the government.

The source of the controversy is the perplexing behaviour of government when, for example, elected officials do not perform according to how the people who voted them into office where told they would perform, or they do not perform according to the spirit of our governing principles:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(Preamble). The post "What is Corruption?" mentions one of the more obvious violations of that spirit during our history:

Take the Civil War as an example. We can say that toxins built up in many people in government until the system became corrupt. It did not take individuals becoming corrupt to the point of committing crime individually for the corruption to manifest. But individuals developed a toxin level as a group or system, to the point it caused us to turn on ourselves and almost destroy the nation.

That systemic corruption can be compared to AIDS, where the body turns on itself because toxins confuse and corrupt the immune system.

(What Is Corruption). To an outside observer of the government these perplexing behaviours that are not in the nation's interest, not in the people's interest as a whole, are interpreted to be caused by nefarious schemers behind the scenes who are "pulling strings" and causing the strange behavior.

But perhaps government can become diseased by the toxins of power within the individuals in the government to the point that they do not resemble the governing body that is sworn to serve the betterment of the nation, the people who voted them into office.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Some individuals of our species think that destruction is appropriate behaviour.

The Ecocosmology blog points out:

The human species at this time is not doing so well on one of the aspects of The Test, Tenet 3(a). We are destroying our home world which means we will not even get to Tenet 3(b)-(f).

(The Mysticism of Failure). Those who are destroying the earth are statistically most likely to have tortured and harmed various animal species in violation of the law of the United States. Such laws exist because we are a great nation of enlightened laws:

Mahatma Gandhi said, “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.” The truth in this statement should prompt police, investigators and prosecutors to vigorously investigate and prosecute – to the fullest degree possible – those who abuse animals in America.

(National District Attorney's Association, link broken use this). One of the tenets of Ecocosmology specifically is in accord with that American understanding:

This tenet warns that nothing should be destroyed or become extinct by our behaviour, because a necessary clue to our survival may be hidden in that species.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

There were Senators like Byrd, and House of Representative members like Pete Stark, in the year 2002, who had vision.

But vision was discounted as a kooky thing, and those that had vision were discounted by the dementia congress was suffering from then, and still is.

Where there is no vision the people perish, and the leaders supplant vision with "excuses" and whining.

The Honorable Pete Stark said this about the "AUMF Resolution" before the Iraq disaster happened:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with UN resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy.

The bottom line is I don’t trust this President and his advisors.

Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the President who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history.

It sets a precedent for our nation - or any nation - to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus.

Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a President who has been so callous to proceed without reservation, as if war was of no real consequence.

You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas politics, wrote: "For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard. At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy."

"Somebody," she said, "should be worrying about how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein." How prophetic, Ms. Ivins.

Let us not forget that our President - our Commander in Chief – has no experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn’t notice "any heavy stuff going on."

So we have a President who thinks foreign territory is the opponent’s dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.

What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this Administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?

Is the President’s need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American?

I submit the answer to these questions is no.

Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by who pays for his capricious adventure into world domination.

The Administration admits to a cost of around $200 billion!

Now, wealthy individuals won’t pay. They’ve got big tax cuts already.

Corporations won’t pay. They’ll cook the books and move overseas and then send their contributions to the Republicans.

Rich kids won’t pay. Their daddies will get them deferments as Big George did for George W.

Well then, who will pay?

School kids will pay. There’ll be no money to keep them from being left behind - way behind.

Seniors will pay. They’ll pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war.

Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable. And there won’t be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it all on the war.

Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights.

Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water quality.

And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women’s rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.

The questions before the members of this House and to all Americans are immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently confronted by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call for war is wrong.

And what greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well being of the world, but for the short-term political interest of our President.

Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation ahead of the President’s accountability to truth and reason by supporting this resolution.

But, I conclude that the only answer is to vote no on the resolution before us.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

There have been a series of events that show the world is in fact aligning against us since we became overpowered by idiot warmongers and idiot economists.

Now it looks like we have moved on to the fourth phase:

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

(Independent). The damage that was done to the U.S. reputation and economy during the Bush II years is breath taking, and may have done us in for real as an empire.

One general says, in a form of military holy doctrine, that more troops have to go the nation being built for the umpteenth time, because more destruction and killing is required so that peace and democracy will come to them.

In a confidential report that was leaked to The Washington Post, McChyrstal stated that he needs more troops in Afghanistan, or the war "will likely result in failure." McChrystal believes that 40,000 more troops are needed in Afghanistan, according to officials.

(Huffington Post). Leaking to the press by a top general seems way cheesy and disrespectful, unless in fact they are the ones in power and the civilians should do their bidding.

The White House General had another opinion to render:

General Jones asserted that he does not believe Afghanistan is "imminent danger of falling" to the Taliban and that the presence of al Qaeda "is very diminished."

"The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country," he said. "No bases. No buildings to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The meaning of "the damage has been done" in the context of earth's biosphere does not always mean we can see the effects of the damage at this moment.

It is like when the engines on an aircraft cease to function, the damage has been done but the full effects which cannot be avoided do not appear until contact with the ground takes place.

The U.N. reports that the damage has been done when it comes to worldwide drought and great catastrophe:

"If we cannot find a solution to this problem... in 2025, close to 70 percent [of the earth] could be affected [with drought]," Luc Gnacadja, executive secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, said Friday.

Drought currently affects at least 41 percent of the planet and environmental degradation has caused it to spike by 15 to 25 percent since 1990, according to a global climate report.

"There will not be global security without food security" in dry regions, Gnacadja said at the start of the ninth UN conference on the convention in the Argentine capital.

"A green deal is necessary" for developing countries working to combat drought, he stressed.

The next meeting on the convention is scheduled to take place in South Korea in 2010.

(Independent). About half of the planet is suffering, at this moment, from drought. This is not a case where substantial damage can be avoided by congress all of a sudden becoming sane, because there really is such a thing as being too late.

(c) Copyright

All original material is copyrighted by Dredd Blog. You may quote or use the material so long as there is a link back to Dredd Blog for every post you use. This is, among other things, to verify that no Dredd Blog text was changed. It must remain the same, no editing. Note that Dredd Blog has no commercial purpose. If it so happens that Dredd Blog may quote copyrighted material from other writers, it is only for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

--the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

--the nature of the copyrighted work;

--the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

--and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." (17 U.S. Code § 107)